Democrats' logo
January was not a good month for Democrats. At the start of the month, Congressional Democrats were in the final stages of ironing out differences in a sweeping health insurance reform bill, a party priority for decades. Then the party lost a special Senate election in the reliably blue state of Massachusetts – and adding insult to injury, it was the seat held by Ted Kennedy, who until his death last fall was the lion of the Senate and the leading champion of health care reform.
Along with the Massachusetts seat the Democrats lost their 60 seat Senate supermajority, and can no longer break a solid Republican filibuster, complicating (but not preventing) the final legislative steps to passing health care reform. But much worse, the Democratic Party broke into a collective nervous fright, a party on the edge of panic.
This is not new for Democrats. Losing five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1992 left them, or at any rate the party’s professional class and commentariat, with a strong inferiority complex, which the 2000 recount debacle revived with a vengeance. The liberal blogosphere, which grew up out of the recount fight and Washington Democrats’ acquiescence in the Iraq war, has since its inception pushed for Democrats to be bolder. Yet nowhere has the atmosphere of the past two weeks been more panic stricken. One (lesser known) contrarian blogger aptly described it as a ‘panic about panic.’
The fear is that House Democrats will forever lose their nerve if they do not act at once – that, like poorly trained medieval footmen facing a cavalry charge, they will break ranks and run from the battle, only to be ridden down and massacred. This fear is real enough, and by way of disclosure I fully share it. I made phone calls to the offices of both my own congresswoman and Speaker Pelosi, urging House action on the Senate bill, something I’ve never before done in a lifetime of political involvement.
President Obama also expressed the same fear, in the same metaphor, when he said in his State of the Union speech that ‘the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.’ But – as Obama no doubt understood, though the liberal bloggers (and I) did not – time is more the congressional Democrats’ friend than their enemy.
The Senate bill, which requires only one House vote to go to Obama’s desk and enactment, is not like a fairy tale coach that turns back into a pumpkin at midnight. It remains ‘live’ for the rest of this congressional session. The passage of time, instead of being unnerving, may allow congressional Democrats to take stock of their situation and proceed with their business, of which health care reform is only one item on the table. A lower noise level would make their work much easier.
In calling for President Obama to speak out more and put old fashioned LBJ-style pressure on Congress, the liberal blogosphere and media commentariat have also ignored the delicacy of his situation. If Democrats have a bad election this fall, the brunt will fall not on the president, who does not face re-election for two years, nor in the Senate, where only a third of all seats are on the ballot this fall. The brunt of voter anger will be taken out on House Democrats, all of whom must face the voters in November.
House Democrats must be acutely sensitive to this fact, and also its implications. Even a painfully slow economic recovery is likely to be in full rebound by 2012, meaning that Obama can expect a more favorable economic climate for his re-election campaign than House Democrats face this fall. Moreover, both Obama and House Democrats know their recent history.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both came in with change messages, as Obama did. Both saw their party lose control of the House in the next midterm election. Reagan’s first years were marked by a severe ‘double dip’ recession, while Democrats in 1994 faced a wave of unrest not unlike the current Tea Party movement. Yet both presidents cruised to re-election two years later, not least in part by using their new House opponents as a foil.
In short, from a purely electoral perspective the White House political shop could readily find a silver lining to Democrats losing the House this fall. House Democrats know this very well, and President Obama knows that they know it. Like the royal Angevins in A Lion in Winter, they are all a very knowledgeable bunch. No wonder Obama does not give House Democrats forceful public marching orders. They are facing the spears in November, and he is not.
Oddly enough I have read no commentary to this effect. Perhaps it is regarded as too indelicate to mention. Of course Obama still has a great deal at stake – arguably a large chunk of his legacy, and more immediate and political considerations as well.
His approval rating, according to Pollster.com’s composite tracking, has slipped marginally into negative territory, with 47.6 percent of the public registering approval of his job performance, as against 49.1 percent disapproval. His approval ratings so far have in fact been very similar to Reagan’s during his first year in office, in a similarly tough economic climate. Passing health care reform might have little short term effect on Obama’s (or other Democrats’) poll ratings, but it would arm him with a major policy achievement to claim in 2012, and also vindicate his relatively hands-off approach to the congressional process.
One final notable observation about the current situation is the dog that hasn’t barked in the night: While Democrats have held numerous funerals for health care reform, Republicans have held no victory dance – as they surely would be doing if they thought they had killed it.
For Obama and the Democrats the political climate certainly is and remains rugged. Prospects for a rebound in the job market this year are dwindling. Voters may still think poorly of Republicans, but they are angry, and can be expected to take it out mainly on the party in power, meaning the Democrats. But Obama’s speech seems to have effective in calming his supporters’ nerves, not least by showing that he himself remains buoyant and confident. And Republican strategists must retain a lurking worry that their best moment has come too early.
Rick Robinson
